U.S. Code » Title 15 » Chapter CHAPTER 44— PROTECTION OF HORSES

15 U.S.C. § 1821

Definitions

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 15 CasesGoogle Scholar
As used in this chapter unless the context otherwise requires:(1) The term “management” means any person who organizes, exercises control over, or administers or who is responsible for organizing, directing, or administering.(2) The term “Secretary” means the Secretary of Agriculture.(3) The term “sore” when used to describe a horse means that—(A) an irritating or blistering agent has been applied, internally or externally, by a person to any limb of a horse,(B) any burn, cut, or laceration has been inflicted by a person on any limb of a horse,(C) any tack, nail, screw, or chemical agent has been injected by a person into or used by a person on any limb of a horse, or(D) any other substance or device has been used by a person on any limb of a horse or a person has engaged in a practice involving a horse,and, as a result of such application, infliction, injection, use, or practice, such horse suffers, or can reasonably be expected to suffer, physical pain or distress, inflammation, or lameness when walking, trotting, or otherwise moving, except that such term does not include such an application, infliction, injection, use, or practice in connection with the therapeutic treatment of a horse by or under the supervision of a person licensed to practice veterinary medicine in the State in which such treatment was given.(4) The term “State” means any of the several States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands.(Pub. L. 91–540, § 2, Dec. 9, 1970, 84 Stat. 1404; Pub. L. 94–360, § 3, July 13, 1976, 90 Stat. 915.)Editorial NotesAmendments

1976—Pub. L. 94–360 added pars. (1) and (2), redesignated subsec. (a), defining “sore” as meaning that certain substances or devices had been applied to any limb of a horse prior to Dec. 9, 1970, resulting in, or reasonably likely to result in, such horse suffering physical pain or distress when walking or trotting, as par. (3) and, as so redesignated, struck out requirement that such substance or device had to have been applied prior to Dec. 9, 1970 in order for a horse to be considered “sored” for purposes of this chapter, and substituted par. (4) defining “State” for subsec. (b) defining “commerce” as between a point in any State or possession of the United States and any point outside thereof, or between points within the same State or possession of the United States but through any place outside thereof, or within the District of Columbia, or from any foreign country to any point within the United States.

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesShort Title of 1976 Amendment

Pub. L. 94–360, § 1(a), July 13, 1976, 90 Stat. 915, provided that: “This Act [amending this section and sections 1822 to 1825, 1827, 1830, and 1831 of this title and enacting provisions set out as notes under this section and section 1831 of this title] may be cited as the ‘Horse Protection Act Amendments of 1976’.”

Short Title

Pub. L. 91–540, § 1, Dec. 9, 1970, 84 Stat. 1404, as amended by Pub. L. 94–360, § 2, July 13, 1976, 90 Stat. 915, provided: “That this Act [enacting this chapter] may be cited as the ‘Horse Protection Act’.”

Executive DocumentsTermination of Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands

For termination of Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands, see note set out preceding section 1681 of Title 48, Territories and Insular Possessions.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 41 cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1976–2025 · leading case: Joe Fleming v. AGRI, 987 F.3d 1093 (D.C. Cir. 2021).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Joe Fleming v. AGRI, 987 F.3d 1093 (D.C. Cir. 2021). · cites it 3× “3 SRINIVASAN, Chief Judge: The petitions for review in these cases ask us to set aside decisions of the Department of Agriculture imposing sanctions on petitioners for violating the Horse Protection Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1821 et seq. After the petitions for review were filed, the…”
United States v. Stevens, 533 F.3d 218 (3rd Cir. 2008). · cites it 3× “" 15 U.S.C. § 1821 . [21] We further reject Stevens's assertion that the fact that society accepts the subjugation of animals for certain utilitarian purposes undercuts this conclusion.”
United States v. Tennessee Walking Horse Breeders' & Exhibitors' Ass'n, 263 F. Supp. 3d 679 (M.D. Tenn. 2017). · cites it 2× “15 U.S.C. §§ 1821 , et seq. Under the HPA, it is unlawful for the owner of a horse to allow the showing, sale, auction, exhibition or transportation of any horse which is sore.”
William Dwaine Elliott v. Adm'r, Animal & Plant Health Inspection Serv., United States Dep't of Agric. United States of Am., 990 F.2d 140 (4th Cir. 1993). · cites it 2× “3 On the complaint of the Administrator of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), a hearing, was held before an Administrative Law Judge (AU).”
Eldon Stamper & Sonya Stamper (Dba Chezmyrae Walkers), Ron H. Fox, & v. Sec'y of Agric., United States Dep't of Agric., &, 722 F.2d 1483 (9th Cir. 1984). · cites it 3× “See 15 U.S.C. §§ 1821 (3), 1825(d)(5) (1976).”
Preach Fleming, Albert Lee Rowland & C.H. Meadows, Joe Fleming v. United States Dep't of Agric., 713 F.2d 179 (6th Cir. 1983). · cites it 2× “Meadows and Joe Fleming were found in three separate administrative hearings to have shown “sored” Tennessee Walking Horses in violation of the Horse Protection Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1821 et seq. (1976). The Judicial Officer of the United States Department of Agriculture 1 (USDA)…”
Am. Horse Prot. Ass'n, Inc. v. Richard E. Lyng, Sec'y, U.S. Dep't of Agric., 812 F.2d 1 (D.C. Cir. 1987). “15 U.S.C. § 1821 (3) (“The term ‘sore’ when used to describe a horse means that [as a result of any substance or device used on a horse’s limb] such horse suffers, or can reasonably be expected to suffer, physical pain or distress, inflammation, or lameness when walking,…”
RRR Farms, Ltd. v. Am. Horse Prot. Ass'n, Inc., 957 S.W.2d 121 (Tex. App. 1997). “See 15 U.S.C.A. § 1821 (3) (1982). The result is the appearance of the horse performing the “big lick.”
Env't Health Trust v. FCC, 9 F.4th 893 (D.C. Cir. 2021). “7 See 15 U.S.C. § 1821 (3) (“The term ‘sore’ when used to describe a horse means that [as a result of any substance or device used on a horse’s limb] such horse suffers, or can reasonably be expected to suffer, physical pain or distress, inflammation, or lameness when walking,…”
Richard L. Thornton & Bill Cantrell v. United States Dep't of Agric., 715 F.2d 1508 (11th Cir. 1983). · cites it 2× “Two United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) veterinarians, posted at the show to monitor regulatory compliance, independently observed that Senator’s Flower showed signs or symptoms of “soring” within the meaning of section 2(3) of the Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1821 (3) 1 Soring…”
Sheryl Crawford v. United States Dep't of Agric., 50 F.3d 46 (D.C. Cir. 1995). · cites it 2× “Congress responded in 1970 with the Horse Protection Act (HPA or Act), 15 U.S.C. § 1821 et seq. (1988), which outlaws such practices.”
Am. Horse Prot. Ass'n, Inc. v. Lyng, 681 F. Supp. 949 (D.D.C. 1988). · cites it 4× “There is no doubt that the conditions reported by the researchers fall within the legal definition of “sore,” according to 15 U.S.C. § 1821 (3). The agency’s objections to the study are without merit.”
Show all 41 citing cases →
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.